Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects legal protection for Live-In relationship, citing ongoing marriage of the partner

Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects legal protection for Live-In relationship, citing ongoing marriage of the partner

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently declined to provide police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship. The court made this decision after recognizing that the lady involved in the live-in relationship was still legally married to someone else.

Although the woman had asserted that her husband had subjected her to physical abuse, the judge took particular notice of the fact that she had neither initiated divorce proceedings nor pursued any other legal actions against her husband. Justice Alok Jain expressed concerns about the nature of the relationship, describing it as "unlawful" and "casual," given that the woman was still legally married and had a child from that marriage.

The couple had previously withdrawn a similar petition in which they sought protection from alleged threats to their safety and freedom. During the proceedings, it was revealed that they had later approached the police seeking protection. 

Justice Jain found this to be an "interesting case" and pointed out that the petition did not provide information about when the petitioner, the woman, had entered into her marriage or the age of her child. He stated that the petition was misleading and concealed facts that could have pointed to the promiscuous relationship the petitioners had with each other.

The court also highlighted that there had been no prior complaints filed by the woman against her husband, despite her previous accusations against him and his family in the protection plea. The court observed that the couple had been cohabiting for over four months, during which time the woman had not taken any steps, such as filing for divorce or pursuing legal action against her husband for the alleged abuse she claimed to have endured.

The court proceeded to dismiss the plea for the protection of the woman and her live-in partner, highlighting that the petition contained only vague allegations of threats without providing specific details or evidence.

Case: Balwinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others CRWP -8841-2023.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy